Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
The Civil Liability of Medical Institution
|Authors:||Chih Chieh Wu|
Medical institution,Medical contract liability,Medical tort liability,Vicarious liability,Juristic person tort liability,Article 82 (V) of the Medical Care Act,Organization liability,
|Publication Year :||2020|
As time changes, medical institutions are providing more diversified medical services, which are different from the traditional single patient-single physician structure, and the organization of hospitals along with the division of medical work are becoming more and more sophisticated, which makes the management of institutions more important. According to the current doctrine in Taiwan, in order to prove the establishment of civil liability of a medical institution, it is necessary to first determine whether the individual medical personnel were negligent in their medical-related conduct, meaning that the medical institution is responsible for the negligent conduct of the individual medical personnel, and not for the institution's own management failures. However, in many cases, the core of the problem lies with the medical institution itself, and it is therefore necessary to delve in depth into the civil liability of the medical institution. With the modernization of medical services, the current practices and theories in Taiwan are insufficient to support the potential risks and damages. As to how to build risk management of a medical institution outside of the current approach, is an issue worth exploring.
This paper observes the liability structure of medical institutions under the civil system in Taiwan, and discusses the civil contractual liability of medical institutions, tort liability, employer liability of medical institutions, tort liability of juridical persons, and Article 82 (V) of Medical Care Law in Taiwan. Medical institution usually has joint liability with its employees, and it is liable for the non-performing of debts due to the negligence of its employees, and for damages caused by the directors or representatives of the medical institution. However, some medical injury cases are due to systemic errors rather than the mistakes of individual medical personnel, and it is difficult to determine the attribution of responsibility for the negligence of the individual medical personnel, and it is impossible to identify the natural person who is at fault. In this case, medical institutions are not responsible for its legal liabilities, which may create a onundrum for victims seeking compensation. Therefore, this paper attempts to propose the possibility of claiming independent liability for tort from medical institutions under section 1 of Article 184 of the Civil Law. In order to raise the incentive for medical institutions to improve their system and patient safety, medical institutions are not allowed to seek compensation from its medical personnel if the cause of the medical dispute is due to a systemic error of the medical institution.
In addition, this paper attempts to conduct a systematic empirical study under the existing judicial system in Taiwan based on Article 82 (V) of the Medical Care Act, and maintains a positive attitude towards the organizational responsibility of medical institutions, and believes that medical institutions should be held to a higher standard of liability for the improvement and safety of the medical environment, and that hospitals should be held liable for damages when their responsibilities are not followed through. The connotation and meaning of article 82 of the Medical Care Act being unclear, and its supporting measures are not complete enough, to the contrary of the original legislative intent of clarifying and rationalizing medical liability. Therefore, this paper boldly advocates that the court practice should change the traditional view and recognize the independent organizational responsibilities of medical institutions and take Article 184 of the Civil Law as the basis of the independent liability of medical institutions, with Article 82 (V) of the Medical Care Law as the special provision to Article 184 of the Civil Law specifying that medical institutions should bear independent liability for compensation. All the same time promoting medical institutions to improve their systems and maintain patient safety and quality assurance. Finally, referring to the theories and court decisions, the concepts of organizational obligation of medical institutions are outlined, including the following: appropriate type of organizational duty, suitable personnel (including physicians and non-physicians) organizational arrangement, appropriate human resources, appropriately selected and supervised accountability, horizontal or vertical division of labor for medical cooperation and coordination, safety management, hospital hygiene and infection control, safety of medical devices and equipment, drug safety, quality patient medical care, including proper informing of the patients and correct detail and organization of case files. This paper provides an alternative way of thinking about how to resolve medical disputes, whether in terms of contractual liability, the re-discussion of the responsibility of legal organizations, the responsibility of tort, the responsibility to fill damages and prevent damages, or the responsibility of medical organizations as a whole. It is hoped that this paper will provide the practical community with a more concrete definition of organizational obligation, in order to alleviate the overly stressful doctor-patient relationship, ensure that the responsibility of medical institutions are fully re-established and the improvement of the medical care system.
|Appears in Collections:||事業經營法務碩士在職學位學程|
Files in This Item:
|7.6 MB||Adobe PDF|
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.